Similarly, comparing pointers using the relational operators
<
,
<=
,
>=
, and
>
gives the positions of the pointers relative to each other. Subtracting or comparing pointers that do not refer to the same array is undefined behavior. (See
undefined behavior 48
and
undefined behavior 53
.)

Comparing pointers using the equality operators
==
and
!=
has well-defined semantics regardless of whether or not either of the pointers is null, points into the same object, or points one past the last element of an array object or function.

In this noncompliant code example, pointer subtraction is used to determine how many free elements are left in the
nums
array:

This program incorrectly assumesthat the
nums
array is adjacent to the
end
variable in memory. A compiler is permitted to insert padding bits between these two variables or even reorder them in memory.

In this compliant solution, the number of free elements is computed by subtracting
next_num_ptr
from the address of the pointer past the
nums
array. While this pointer may not be dereferenced, it may be used in pointer arithmetic.

ARR36-C-EX1:
Comparing two pointers to distinct members of the same
struct
object is allowed. Pointers to structure members declared later in the structure compare greater-than pointers to members declared earlier in the structure.

Larry Jones says, via email: > > So from what we can tell, it's OK to compare pointers to members within > > the same struct, but not OK to subtract pointers in the same situation. > > True or false?

David Hamilton,
writing in
Science
(1990)
, noted the following statistics: an estimated 80% of papers that are published in academic journals were never cited more than once. (In addition, self-citation accounted for up to 20% of all citations. It may not be a stretch to think that some of those solo citations came from the eponymous author[s].) On top of that, 10% of the academic journals probably got 90% of the citations.

Let me re-state this: 80 percent of studies that are peer-reviewed and published are (or were), it seems, so utterly useless that no one ever cites them more than once. (
In a follow-up study
, estimates revealed that in the field of medicine, the percentage of papers without a single citation was about 46%; in the field of arts and humanities, an estimated 98% of papers go uncited.)

OK, so let’s pause for a moment and regroup. First, when I read/hear “thought leaders” (who shall remain nameless) claim to read all of the literature out there, I have to call BS. It’s simply not possible. Second, why would you want to? The above observations lead to the inevitable conclusion that most (by volume) of the published work on PubMed is barely fit to line the bottom of a bird cage.

It’s not lost on us that a heavily cited paper can be worse than useless and a thinly-cited one can be invaluable. A keen eye and good mental models can only get one so far. With more and more papers published by the minute, just how much noise is generated in the current landscape? Our conservative calculations show that, “
these go to eleven
.” To be sure, there’s still a formidable amount of information and knowledge waiting to be plucked from the literature. And a limited amount of time.

In 2015 I came to the realization that I was slipping. My “work” obligations, even with the huge reduction I deliberately made in exercise time, made it too difficult for me to keep up. The list of “To read” papers on my desktop was becoming an eyesore. I actually contemplated spending even more time on airplanes since that seemed to be best time for me to read. Yes, elective flights around the world just to read at 40,000 feet. The solution was obvious. I needed more brains. Literally more brains. So I hired them. Today, my practice employs a team of research analysts who are not just exceptionally bright and voracious consumers of literature, but also people who are so naturally curious (arguably the one skill I can’t really teach) that when you give them a problem, it’s just a matter of time until our collective knowledge on the topic will be increased.

I never met Landau in person, but I interviewed him for
blue grey nike air max 2016 womens running
I wrote for
The News-Herald
in 2011. At the time, Landau's Twitter account was starting to gain some attention because of its "Major League" references.

That led to a meeting with former Tribe president Mark Shapiro in Heritage Park on May 21, 2011.

"I took my sister and younger cousins to the game, and we were looking at the Lofton plaque in center field," Landau said of a Saturday matchup against the Reds. "I turned around and saw Mark Shapiro with his wife and kids. I just said, 'Mr. Shapiro,' and he turned around and said hi. I told him I was Jobu Lives from Twitter, and he said 'Are you kidding me? Let me see your shirt. Is there any bat magic?' I asked him for a picture, and he shook hands with my sister and cousins and thanked us for coming to the game. He said, 'When you're done with the picture, I'll retweet it.' "

Shapiro did, and Landau was clearly thrilled about the chance encounter.

Landau created Jobu Lives after the 2011 Indians lost 4-3 to the Minnesota Twins on April 24. It was the Tribe's third consecutive defeat, but the club was still 13-8 — better than expected coming off 69- and 65-win seasons.

"Everyone was saying how bad they were playing, so I decided to join as Jobu and put out some positive stuff," Landau told me at the time. "They were still off to a better start than anyone anticipated. After I joined, they won seven in a row, and I kept mentioning that and the bat magic. It started catching on. People had some fun with it."

His account accumulated more than 9,000 followers — who in the last few months were treated to pictures of Landau's
baby daughter
. When I spoke with Landau in 2011, he was a 28-year-old project manager for Conte Remodelers, a company his grandfather started in 1973. Conte, which has offices in Marion (where Landau lived) and Delaware, has him on the front of its
air jordan low 13 og
as a project supervisor.